Thread for Atheists & Christians - STFU

Atheists and Christians usually don't argue specifically if there is a God or there is not a God on this newsgroup.

We usually argue if Jesus Christ existed at all and if Jesus Christ is God.

We argue if the current cannoized Christian Bible is with error or completely without error.

Since the Bible is full of contradictions, we know for a fact that it is with error. Did Judas hang himself or did he fall to his death? A Christian appologist might say that he hanged and when he was cut down, his guts burst out. People who believe that the Bible is without error constantly make these kind of contrived appologies. One appology might seem o.k., but when Christians make thousands of appologies trying to say that the Bible is without error and says the same thing, then they are lying to themselves and to us.

Now God is a subjective thing. I can worship breasts and bottoms and money. God to many people is a person that has never lied and a person who hates slavery. Well we know from the Bible that Jesus lied. John 7:8-10. A Christian appologist would say he just changed his mind. "but as it were in secret" is pretty deceptive for God. Jesus also said beat slaves even though the slaves didn't know they were doing wrong. Luke 12:47-48. A Christian appologist would say that it is just a parable, a story. But a story teaches, and Jesus was teaching slavery. If he was God, the kind of God I would worship, he would say, free your slaves.

Jesus Christ was never even mentioned together before 325 a.d. Jesus wasn't even a person's name before then. In fact, we do know who wrote several parts of the Bible because we can study early versions of it and see how it changed. We can learn a lot of things by what was mentioned early on and what wasn't.

For example, the entire New Testament and Christianity is based on Revelation, a book on Astrology by Apollonius, which was never meant to be publically read. We know that Lucius Plutarchus who was a very famous Roman and royal historian, was the original Luke of the Bible because both men have the same personal history, born in the same town, died in the same place. We know that the travels of Paul (Apollonius) were really the conquest paths of Titus. And we know that the religion of Mythras later was turned into the religion of Christianity.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1518033

You are correct. Suggested reading The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33254054

Some of that is rather silly and not supported by historical evidence. There have been Christians (Christ-followers) since the time of Jesus, and reading the fragment called the Magdelene document which is a portion of Mark, as well very early copies of Paul's letters show that it was written within 50 years of Jesus' death and ressurection. [link to www.bib-arch.org]

"On December 24, 1994, the Times of London ran a front-page story entitled “Oxford papyrus is ‘eyewitness record of the life of Christ.’” The article reported the claim that three papyrus fragments of Matthew’s Gospel in Magdalen College, Oxford, date to the mid-first century C.E. Instead of having been written a generation or more after Jesus’ death, as is—or was—the scholarly consensus, Matthew’s Gospel was written within a decade or so of the crucifixion by someone who was there at the time, so the article said. This, of course, would indeed be astounding and worthy of the treatment the Times gave it.“Not since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947,” the story continued, “has there been such a potentially important breakthrough in biblical scholarship.” The newspaper devoted nearly two full pages to the story, including an editorial that likened the alleged new discovery not only to finding the Dead Sea Scrolls, but also to Howard Carter’s discovery of Tutankhamun’s treasures and to Schliemann’s location of Troy. Two days later, the Times included an extended interview with Dr. Carsten Thiede of Paderborn, Germany, on whose scholarship this claim is based.Thiede’s claims are threefold. First, Matthew’s Gospel is an eyewitness account of the life and teaching of Jesus—so today’s Bible scholars (who date it to about 80 C.E.) are wrong, and the early church fathers were right after all. Second, at the time Matthew was written the formal separation of Christianity and Judaism had not yet occurred. Third, “Recognition of Christ’s divinity was made before the end of classical Judaism in 70 C.E.”

It is likely that Paul did not write many letters until the beginning of his second missionary journey in A.D. 49. There would not be much point in writing letters until he was already somewhat well traveled, and had people to write to. The oldest letter that we have is 1 Thessalonians, and it was written around A.D. 49-51. He continued writing letters up until his death in A.D. 67, so we have a range of A.D. 49-67 for all of his letters. Attempting to date the letters more accurately is like putting together an intricate puzzle that is missing many of the pieces. Some letters can be dated fairly precisely, such as 1 Thessalonians, and others not so much. I give the most probable dates of the letters below. Because of the arguments' length, their peripheral relevance to this book, and their tendency to put people to sleep, I do not put them here, but only give a very brief outline. For the full arguments, see the introductions mentioned above. They give slightly different dates, because they did not use Finegan as the source for the chronology of Paul's life."

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

Let me get this straight. So, the same people who argue that the mothods we currently use for dating are so inacurate they will believe none of it, because it disproved the bible as historical fact, now are using that same dating method to support their biblical artifact dates? I shouldn't have to point out the irony in your logic.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10792566

That is the kind of strange backwards logic that makes no sense to me. Either the bible is without error, and the dates are correct, or they are metaphor. It cannot be both.

So, how the heck can one Christian convince a nonbeliever? It isn't by using the Bible. That's getting the cart before the horse.

Many will listen then because we're doing what Jesus said to do. Jesus Saves...not us. We are frail beings and make mistakes. Jesus is undeniably kind hearted and good. Seldom will people say the opposite of Jesus.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

And what about the bible? Is that really God's word or are they words of Rulers of the Day speaking for God? (The times may change but people never do.) The Old Testament God is a cruel and vicious God who demands obedience upon the threat of death. What kind of God creates humans and then punishes them for being human? Plus the true God knows there is no such thing as death; there's only a change in vibration levels from low to higher.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24392638

The Bible is the most authenticated ancient texts. We have very old fragments in the thousands of copies and mostly they are the same with minor changes such as scribes notes in the margins. Have you taken a class on the Bible before from a perspective of archaelogy? I can assure you by comparison that say the works of Aristoltle number in a miniscule amount and yet not one doubts that he existed or wrote his works.

Again you sound like a Gnostic who tries to say that the Old Testament god is a Demiurge. If you are a Gnostic then why won't you admit it openly?

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

Those who own the press, have the means for distribution, and the will to carry out long range plans, can, and have instilled this paradigm...

Authenticated !!! By whom...

Of course, I know your answer is scholars... As I said - any paradigm can be instilled over time, if you have the means for distribution...

Until you have verified facts with your own observations, then everything is suspect... So-called educated, or authoritative figures are part of the system... They do not pass, get their degrees, and have a future until they pass the tests...

Let me get this straight. So, the same people who argue that the mothods we currently use for dating are so inacurate they will believe none of it, because it disproved the bible as historical fact, now are using that same dating method to support their biblical artifact dates? I shouldn't have to point out the irony in your logic.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10792566

Explain what you mean please. Are you meaning carbon dating? I'm not one of those silly Christians who believes the Earth is 6000 years old. The vast majority of Christians don't believe that nonsense. There are some Christians who believe in such things, but I'm not one of them.

Such methods are used to date the historical papyrus that we have and serious Bible scholars rely upon such methods. Only some recent fundamentalists say post 1960 or so would argue that carbon dating is not valid. Usually those folks are not scientists or have any scientific training whatsoever.

That is the kind of strange backwards logic that makes no sense to me. Either the bible is without error, and the dates are correct, or they are metaphor. It cannot be both.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10792566

You wrote so briefly that it's impossible to determine your meaning. Expand on what you said please.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

I really don't have the energy to the rounds today. The argument is stale, goes nowhere and matters to me not what you believe. Changes nothing. I've seen no evidence that would sway my opinion either way. I only would caution an affirmation in one over the other. Stranger things have happened than a man, 50 years or older changing his spiritual perosna. On that note, I must return to the immense pain of my Pylonidal cyst. Good day, Sir.

Those who own the press, have the means for distribution, and the will to carry out long range plans, can, and have instilled this paradigm...

Authenticated !!! By whom...

Of course, I know your answer is scholars... As I said - any paradigm can be instilled over time, if you have the means for distribution...

Until you have verified facts with your own observations, then everything is suspect... So-called educated, or authoritative figures are part of the system... They do not pass, get their degrees, and have a future until they pass the tests...

Who designed the tests???

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17551129

Are you doubting ALL SCHOLARSHIP! Wow! Well it would be impressive to independently prove each science and humanities yourself. Can you do that? You mean you yourself are a PhD in multiple disciplines and have independently proven every thing that you've ever read?

Wow! You must be a genius....ROFL

Oh my gosh, you're thrown the baby out with the bathwater there, Hoss!

I don't doubt everything. I do an enormous amount of cricital thinking though. Your way seem illogical to the EXTREME!

So basically you're doubting the authority of anyone but yourself???????????????

Let me get this straight. So, the same people who argue that the mothods we currently use for dating are so inacurate they will believe none of it, because it disproved the bible as historical fact, now are using that same dating method to support their biblical artifact dates? I shouldn't have to point out the irony in your logic.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10792566

Explain what you mean please. Are you meaning carbon dating? I'm not one of those silly Christians who believes the Earth is 6000 years old. The vast majority of Christians don't believe that nonsense. There are some Christians who believe in such things, but I'm not one of them.

Such methods are used to date the historical papyrus that we have and serious Bible scholars rely upon such methods. Only some recent fundamentalists say post 1960 or so would argue that carbon dating is not valid. Usually those folks are not scientists or have any scientific training whatsoever.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

Yes, I was under the assumption that you were, in fact a creationist, making an argument for the correct dating of parchment, whilst denying wholly the use of any other dating models. I am agnostic, and happen to promote those having spiritual epiphanies. It's beautiful. I am, however, with the original poster in his sentiment that the argument here has no hope of being a mature affair, so it is actually quite pointless to keep the threads coming. Again, I should be resting, so I say good day sir.

So, how the heck can one Christian convince a nonbeliever? It isn't by using the Bible. That's getting the cart before the horse.

Many will listen then because we're doing what Jesus said to do. Jesus Saves...not us. We are frail beings and make mistakes. Jesus is undeniably kind hearted and good. Seldom will people say the opposite of Jesus.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

Tell me, why does a Christian need to convince a nonbeliever? If you believe in your own faith, that it's right for you, that's all that should matter to you. But if you need to convince someone else of your faith, then that tells me that you aren't convinced of it yourself. And because you aren't convinced of it, you must use biblical verses in order to make your point. Your religion has forbade you think for yourself so you must let the bible do your thinking for you. You don't realize how weak your argument is because you are on the inside looking out.

Buddhists do not go around trying to convince non-Buddhists to believe as they do. They know that their beliefs may not be right for someone else but they are right for them. Hindus do not try to convince others to do as they do. Hindus are concerned with their own enlightenment. Here's a wonderful description of enlightenment from Lynn Forrest: "Enlightenment is simply the falling away of untruths and darkness so that the inner light, that has been there all along, is revealed. It is a process of unveiling, rather than one of attainment."

Your Christian religion has also led you down erroneous religious paths. Jesus did not start the Christian religion; his followers did many years after the fact. Jesus cannot save you; you must save yourself, and you do that according to how you live your life. Jesus did not die for your sins; your sins are your own, not his. He died to show you that there is no death; that is what Lazarus and the resurrection is all about. But your religion does not want you to know that because then they would have no power over you. As it is now, the church holds you in life-long fear that you will rot in hell if you don't obey the church's commands. The CHURCH'S commands, not God's commands. The church commands you by putting words in God's mouth. Is that the kind of bogus faith you want?

And what about the bible? Is that really God's word or are they words of Rulers of the Day speaking for God? (The times may change but people never do.) The Old Testament God is a cruel and vicious God who demands obedience upon the threat of death. What kind of God creates humans and then punishes them for being human? Plus the true God knows there is no such thing as death; there's only a change in vibration levels from low to higher.

It's time to start thinking about what you've been taught. If you've thought about it, weighed its pros and cons, investigated other religions, other philosophies, other ways of living, then you came to your decision on your own rather than being indoctrinated into your religion since birth. Now you won't feel the need to convince others of your faith because it is rock solid within you and it matters not what others believe. Now you can live your faith in peace and harmony, and you realize that if everyone lived their faith in peace and harmony, this world would be a heaven on earth.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24392638

Well of course, we don't need to convince anyone of anything due to Free Will. Christians do it out of caring allegedly just as Atheists allegedly spread their belief too. Are you really going to deny the proliferation of Atheists websites? Come on! We can do that discussion all day long for atheists cannot say they don't equally prosthelytize with equal fervor.

Are you seriously going to discuss my statements as being illogical? My arguments were lengthy and full of reason, having spent an enormous amount of time carefully laying them out. Read all of them again, for my own thoughts are even more ordered than your own.

Are you going to say that quoting Biblical verses is any different than atheists quoting from the Bible or other famous scholarly writing? Come on! Be intellectually honest in the dialectic. Don't cop out with a change in a very ancient Greek practice of dialogue that has always been in this kind of format.

You don't know many Buddhists, do you? You're making a sweeping generalization. Look at the mindfulness training by the very famous and eloquent Thich Nhat Hanh. What about the Dali Lama? What about any number of famous Buddhists in many different nations. You can't be serious.

I completely disagree that Hindu people don't also discuss their religion. Of course they do and have with me. Rational people who are spiritual or not often discuss spiritual matters. Then by doing so, some people end up embracing them. You're self-deluded.

The question of God being cruel is a very common subject and I believe is the CHIEF reason atheists and agnostics reject God. I agree it seems cruel. Many verses are problematic. You won't get any argument that they are there. Are we arguing that God exists or that God is cruel at times from our perspective as solitary being on a miniscule planet which orbits a small sun, not the largest by any means? Are you saying if God is cruel sometimes that you won't believe in a God who has that kind of VAST POWER? Well if God does have all of that power than you do not believe at your doom, right? If God isn't real, then why are you worried?

Your post is not full of your assertions as much as questions for me, and so it would literally take about a hundred posts to even get close to answering them. Rather than do that (while I will gladly), why not propose what YOU believe and ask me one question or two?

The interesting aspect is that for an atheist, you're quite judgmental versus me who insists upon your freedom to believe what you wish as well as mostly working to take care of the temporal needs of the poor, which by definition is magnanimous and kind. You have a strange belief in Christians that I can assure you is not either my means of believing nor the way I interact with nonbelievers.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

I never said I was an atheist, you just assumed that. I do believe in God but not the God of the bible, and my beliefs are my beliefs. I have no need to share them with anyone because it doesn't matter to me what anyone else thinks. We all have our own path to travel. All paths lead to God and mine is none of your business. I'm only commenting on yours because you put it on a public forum.

I am also not questioning whether God exists or not. My experiences tell me God does exist but not the personal God of Christianity.

Another wrong assumption you made was my not knowing any Buddhists. I volunteered at a Buddhist publishing house for a year that published only books by Thich Nhat Hanh. People who wanted to know more about Buddhist thought contacted the publisher for books to read. People who are searching contact that which offers them answers. They are not hit over the head like rabid Christians spouting chapter and verse. I'm not saying that's what you're doing but there are plenty who do. I've met many born-again Christians who are the worst people I've ever known. They were not Christlike even by accident.

I also had a very close friend who was a Hindu and he never once tried to convert me to his way of thinking, nor did his Hindu friends.

One more thought and then I'm done. What I don't like about Christians is their obsessive focus on Satan. I've been to church services with friends or because of funerals and the emphasis on evil makes me want to puke. Talk about devil worship! Even my own mother's funeral was full of Satan crap.

Change the focus to love and you change the world. You attract what you put out there, which is universal law.

Those who own the press, have the means for distribution, and the will to carry out long range plans, can, and have instilled this paradigm...

Authenticated !!! By whom...

Of course, I know your answer is scholars... As I said - any paradigm can be instilled over time, if you have the means for distribution...

Until you have verified facts with your own observations, then everything is suspect... So-called educated, or authoritative figures are part of the system... They do not pass, get their degrees, and have a future until they pass the tests...

Who designed the tests???

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17551129

Are you doubting ALL SCHOLARSHIP! Wow! Well it would be impressive to independently prove each science and humanities yourself. Can you do that? You mean you yourself are a PhD in multiple disciplines and have independently proven every thing that you've ever read?

Wow! You must be a genius....ROFL

Oh my gosh, you're thrown the baby out with the bathwater there, Hoss!

I don't doubt everything. I do an enormous amount of cricital thinking though. Your way seem illogical to the EXTREME!

So basically you're doubting the authority of anyone but yourself???????????????

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

I rely on a master scholar who is skilled in his/her craft to fix/build something...

This person would have credibility, because I can observe the accomplishment...

However, when it comes to my spiritual nature - the only authority is me...

Let me get this straight. So, the same people who argue that the mothods we currently use for dating are so inacurate they will believe none of it, because it disproved the bible as historical fact, now are using that same dating method to support their biblical artifact dates? I shouldn't have to point out the irony in your logic.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10792566

Explain what you mean please. Are you meaning carbon dating? I'm not one of those silly Christians who believes the Earth is 6000 years old. The vast majority of Christians don't believe that nonsense. There are some Christians who believe in such things, but I'm not one of them.

Such methods are used to date the historical papyrus that we have and serious Bible scholars rely upon such methods. Only some recent fundamentalists say post 1960 or so would argue that carbon dating is not valid. Usually those folks are not scientists or have any scientific training whatsoever.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

Yes, I was under the assumption that you were, in fact a creationist, making an argument for the correct dating of parchment, whilst denying wholly the use of any other dating models. I am agnostic, and happen to promote those having spiritual epiphanies. It's beautiful. I am, however, with the original poster in his sentiment that the argument here has no hope of being a mature affair, so it is actually quite pointless to keep the threads coming. Again, I should be resting, so I say good day sir.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10792566

Ah! Makes total sense. No, I'm not a creationist in the sense of believing in the 6000 year nonsensical antiscientific model. Who can know how long God took to make the Universe? The rational discovery of carbon 14 and the decay rate makes sense, but of course contaminiation will always cause issues.

You know you and I could have a rational discussion and not argue but actually learn to find common ground, as can most intellectuals who are of any faith or absent a faith or an agnostic.

I am glad you're at least an agnostic, for I bet you find enormous beauty in Nature and feel the call of God in some manifestation. There are deeply devout spiritual people, and when we encounter them, seldom are they dogmatic. Usually they are humble, considerate, and the first to be altruistic. That doesn't mean they are right, but at least they're not yelling as a means of insisting upon conversion.

As long as people are rational, and intellectually honest, then all people could make life on Earth much better by the reduction of discord.

In friendship we might even persuade each other of the veracity of spiritual systems (and the natural superiority of Christianity by Jesus Christ)!

The only time it become silly is when nonintellectuals enter into a debate and then it's more like screaming children.

No one can prove that "God" or any variation thereof the concept is real.

No one can prove that "God" or any variation thereof the concept is NOT real.

All arguments are moot without assuming a "given".

How can I say all this with certainty?

BECAUSE NO ONE CAN PROVE THAT THEY'RE NOT DREAMING RIGHT NOW, with fabricated memories and all.

No matter what, FAITH is required just to participate in whatever you think is reality.

Both atheists and God-believers base their beliefs on FAITH in experiential data.

A true atheist "lacks a belief" and that is a perfectly honest position to hold. However, the rabid atheists who argue endlessly that "there is no God" are taking the same leap of faith that the proselytizing Christians are.

But I'd be a liar if I said that my NDE provides "proof"--even to myself. After all, my dreams are as "real" as anything even when I'm walking on the ceiling and lightsaber fighting and flying a MIG--all with a head full of outlandish memories.

So...all of you know-it-alls arguing FOR or AGAINST the concept of "God" need tobecause your arguments ARE DEMONSTRABLY FLAWED.

Quoting: simultaneous_final

You forgot excruciatingly annoying as well.

I would become a paying member if they would start banning religious threads.

No one can prove that "God" or any variation thereof the concept is real.

No one can prove that "God" or any variation thereof the concept is NOT real.

All arguments are moot without assuming a "given".

How can I say all this with certainty?

BECAUSE NO ONE CAN PROVE THAT THEY'RE NOT DREAMING RIGHT NOW, with fabricated memories and all.

No matter what, FAITH is required just to participate in whatever you think is reality.

Both atheists and God-believers base their beliefs on FAITH in experiential data.

A true atheist "lacks a belief" and that is a perfectly honest position to hold. However, the rabid atheists who argue endlessly that "there is no God" are taking the same leap of faith that the proselytizing Christians are.

But I'd be a liar if I said that my NDE provides "proof"--even to myself. After all, my dreams are as "real" as anything even when I'm walking on the ceiling and lightsaber fighting and flying a MIG--all with a head full of outlandish memories.

So...all of you know-it-alls arguing FOR or AGAINST the concept of "God" need tobecause your arguments ARE DEMONSTRABLY FLAWED.

Quoting: simultaneous_final

You forgot excruciatingly annoying as well.

I would become a paying member if they would start banning religious threads.

Every time I see them my head starts to ache.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33674751

Then don't read them Silly!

I feel the same way when I see yet another Nobody thread, or a race-baiting one, or one on "I'm an jerkoff; ask me a question."

So, how the heck can one Christian convince a nonbeliever? It isn't by using the Bible. That's getting the cart before the horse.

Many will listen then because we're doing what Jesus said to do. Jesus Saves...not us. We are frail beings and make mistakes. Jesus is undeniably kind hearted and good. Seldom will people say the opposite of Jesus.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

Tell me, why does a Christian need to convince a nonbeliever? If you believe in your own faith, that it's right for you, that's all that should matter to you. But if you need to convince someone else of your faith, then that tells me that you aren't convinced of it yourself. And because you aren't convinced of it, you must use biblical verses in order to make your point. Your religion has forbade you think for yourself so you must let the bible do your thinking for you. You don't realize how weak your argument is because you are on the inside looking out.

Buddhists do not go around trying to convince non-Buddhists to believe as they do. They know that their beliefs may not be right for someone else but they are right for them. Hindus do not try to convince others to do as they do. Hindus are concerned with their own enlightenment. Here's a wonderful description of enlightenment from Lynn Forrest: "Enlightenment is simply the falling away of untruths and darkness so that the inner light, that has been there all along, is revealed. It is a process of unveiling, rather than one of attainment."

Your Christian religion has also led you down erroneous religious paths. Jesus did not start the Christian religion; his followers did many years after the fact. Jesus cannot save you; you must save yourself, and you do that according to how you live your life. Jesus did not die for your sins; your sins are your own, not his. He died to show you that there is no death; that is what Lazarus and the resurrection is all about. But your religion does not want you to know that because then they would have no power over you. As it is now, the church holds you in life-long fear that you will rot in hell if you don't obey the church's commands. The CHURCH'S commands, not God's commands. The church commands you by putting words in God's mouth. Is that the kind of bogus faith you want?

And what about the bible? Is that really God's word or are they words of Rulers of the Day speaking for God? (The times may change but people never do.) The Old Testament God is a cruel and vicious God who demands obedience upon the threat of death. What kind of God creates humans and then punishes them for being human? Plus the true God knows there is no such thing as death; there's only a change in vibration levels from low to higher.

It's time to start thinking about what you've been taught. If you've thought about it, weighed its pros and cons, investigated other religions, other philosophies, other ways of living, then you came to your decision on your own rather than being indoctrinated into your religion since birth. Now you won't feel the need to convince others of your faith because it is rock solid within you and it matters not what others believe. Now you can live your faith in peace and harmony, and you realize that if everyone lived their faith in peace and harmony, this world would be a heaven on earth.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24392638

Well of course, we don't need to convince anyone of anything due to Free Will. Christians do it out of caring allegedly just as Atheists allegedly spread their belief too. Are you really going to deny the proliferation of Atheists websites? Come on! We can do that discussion all day long for atheists cannot say they don't equally prosthelytize with equal fervor.

Are you seriously going to discuss my statements as being illogical? My arguments were lengthy and full of reason, having spent an enormous amount of time carefully laying them out. Read all of them again, for my own thoughts are even more ordered than your own.

Are you going to say that quoting Biblical verses is any different than atheists quoting from the Bible or other famous scholarly writing? Come on! Be intellectually honest in the dialectic. Don't cop out with a change in a very ancient Greek practice of dialogue that has always been in this kind of format.

You don't know many Buddhists, do you? You're making a sweeping generalization. Look at the mindfulness training by the very famous and eloquent Thich Nhat Hanh. What about the Dali Lama? What about any number of famous Buddhists in many different nations. You can't be serious.

I completely disagree that Hindu people don't also discuss their religion. Of course they do and have with me. Rational people who are spiritual or not often discuss spiritual matters. Then by doing so, some people end up embracing them. You're self-deluded.

The question of God being cruel is a very common subject and I believe is the CHIEF reason atheists and agnostics reject God. I agree it seems cruel. Many verses are problematic. You won't get any argument that they are there. Are we arguing that God exists or that God is cruel at times from our perspective as solitary being on a miniscule planet which orbits a small sun, not the largest by any means? Are you saying if God is cruel sometimes that you won't believe in a God who has that kind of VAST POWER? Well if God does have all of that power than you do not believe at your doom, right? If God isn't real, then why are you worried?

Your post is not full of your assertions as much as questions for me, and so it would literally take about a hundred posts to even get close to answering them. Rather than do that (while I will gladly), why not propose what YOU believe and ask me one question or two?

The interesting aspect is that for an atheist, you're quite judgmental versus me who insists upon your freedom to believe what you wish as well as mostly working to take care of the temporal needs of the poor, which by definition is magnanimous and kind. You have a strange belief in Christians that I can assure you is not either my means of believing nor the way I interact with nonbelievers.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

I never said I was an atheist, you just assumed that. I do believe in God but not the God of the bible, and my beliefs are my beliefs. I have no need to share them with anyone because it doesn't matter to me what anyone else thinks. We all have our own path to travel. All paths lead to God and mine is none of your business. I'm only commenting on yours because you put it on a public forum.

I am also not questioning whether God exists or not. My experiences tell me God does exist but not the personal God of Christianity.

Another wrong assumption you made was my not knowing any Buddhists. I volunteered at a Buddhist publishing house for a year that published only books by Thich Nhat Hanh. People who wanted to know more about Buddhist thought contacted the publisher for books to read. People who are searching contact that which offers them answers. They are not hit over the head like rabid Christians spouting chapter and verse. I'm not saying that's what you're doing but there are plenty who do. I've met many born-again Christians who are the worst people I've ever known. They were not Christlike even by accident.

I also had a very close friend who was a Hindu and he never once tried to convert me to his way of thinking, nor did his Hindu friends.

One more thought and then I'm done. What I don't like about Christians is their obsessive focus on Satan. I've been to church services with friends or because of funerals and the emphasis on evil makes me want to puke. Talk about devil worship! Even my own mother's funeral was full of Satan crap.

Change the focus to love and you change the world. You attract what you put out there, which is universal law.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24392638

I am a Chistian and i have never focused on satan, my focus every day is on Jesus Christ. I could give a crap about satan. He is just a flea and he will be dealt with.

Science is required to assume things to clarify a picture of what is in the natural world. They take the present, measurable data, and apply assumptions that resolve conflicts in the data set. So here are some puzzling facts about life that create conflict in the evolutionary data set.

The Cell: Evolution explains the transition between life forms. Evolution requires a cell that already has the built in capacity to reproduce itself. So how did we get a cell?

Constants in Nature: Evolution depends on constants being in place -- our existence here is dependent upon and extremely fine-tuned Universe.

Evil: Evolution cannot explain the depth of human evil. Evolution presumes cruelty and harshness, but it is out of necessity. So how do you explain this human evil that far exceeds necessity and reaches depths that are unfathomable?

Rationality: Evolution cannot account for rationality because evolution says we are programmed in the world to survive and reproduce. Our minds are organs of survival. They are not organs of truth. So if we believe in rationality we require something outside of evolution to account for that.

Morality: Evolution cannot account for morality -- from the little things, to deeds of heroic greatness. Both the person who offers up his seat to an elderly woman to the person who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies – both are operating outside the scope of evolution. In both cases there is no advantage to be gained. What is the evolutionary explanation for morality?

Art: We sing, dance, sculpt, cook, etc., etc. We encapsulate our emotions into these practices to create something of meaning that provides no evolutionary advantage.

I ask you to consider the God explanation. Why do we have a cell that shows the structure of complexity? Because, the cell has been intelligently designed by an intelligent designer. Why does the universe show complexity? Same answer. Why is there rationality? Because those are characteristics of the designer. Why is the depth of human evil so deep? Because our lives are a drama in which good and evil are in constant struggle (the Christian story). Why is there morality in the world, or why do we all feel, even when it works against our advantage, a moral law within us? Because there is a moral lawgiver who gave it to us. Why do we exercise our creative ability in the form of artistic endeavor? Because we are created in the image of a creator.

When you put it all together, the presupposition of God resolves the errors in the data set. Suddenly the light comes on with respect to these mysteries I’ve listed above. It provides an explanation. Now, there may be a better explanation, but I have yet to hear one.

No one can prove that "God" or any variation thereof the concept is real.

No one can prove that "God" or any variation thereof the concept is NOT real.

All arguments are moot without assuming a "given".

How can I say all this with certainty?

BECAUSE NO ONE CAN PROVE THAT THEY'RE NOT DREAMING RIGHT NOW, with fabricated memories and all.

No matter what, FAITH is required just to participate in whatever you think is reality.

Both atheists and God-believers base their beliefs on FAITH in experiential data.

A true atheist "lacks a belief" and that is a perfectly honest position to hold. However, the rabid atheists who argue endlessly that "there is no God" are taking the same leap of faith that the proselytizing Christians are.

But I'd be a liar if I said that my NDE provides "proof"--even to myself. After all, my dreams are as "real" as anything even when I'm walking on the ceiling and lightsaber fighting and flying a MIG--all with a head full of outlandish memories.

So...all of you know-it-alls arguing FOR or AGAINST the concept of "God" need tobecause your arguments ARE DEMONSTRABLY FLAWED.

Quoting: simultaneous_final

You forgot excruciatingly annoying as well.

I would become a paying member if they would start banning religious threads.

Every time I see them my head starts to ache.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33674751

Then don't read them Silly!

I feel the same way when I see yet another Nobody thread, or a race-baiting one, or one on "I'm an jerkoff; ask me a question."

That is the kind of strange backwards logic that makes no sense to me. Either the bible is without error, and the dates are correct, or they are metaphor. It cannot be both.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10792566

You wrote so briefly that it's impossible to determine your meaning. Expand on what you said please.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

I really don't have the energy to the rounds today. The argument is stale, goes nowhere and matters to me not what you believe. Changes nothing. I've seen no evidence that would sway my opinion either way. I only would caution an affirmation in one over the other. Stranger things have happened than a man, 50 years or older changing his spiritual perosna. On that note, I must return to the immense pain of my Pylonidal cyst. Good day, Sir.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10792566

At least you have a sense of humor, and must be an intellectual to have used the bolded term. That went over most of the crowd. I took advanced medical training so I started laughing! (He said he has a boil on his ass.)

No one can prove that "God" or any variation thereof the concept is real.

No one can prove that "God" or any variation thereof the concept is NOT real.

All arguments are moot without assuming a "given".

How can I say all this with certainty?

BECAUSE NO ONE CAN PROVE THAT THEY'RE NOT DREAMING RIGHT NOW, with fabricated memories and all.

No matter what, FAITH is required just to participate in whatever you think is reality.

Both atheists and God-believers base their beliefs on FAITH in experiential data.

A true atheist "lacks a belief" and that is a perfectly honest position to hold. However, the rabid atheists who argue endlessly that "there is no God" are taking the same leap of faith that the proselytizing Christians are.

But I'd be a liar if I said that my NDE provides "proof"--even to myself. After all, my dreams are as "real" as anything even when I'm walking on the ceiling and lightsaber fighting and flying a MIG--all with a head full of outlandish memories.

So...all of you know-it-alls arguing FOR or AGAINST the concept of "God" need tobecause your arguments ARE DEMONSTRABLY FLAWED.

Quoting: simultaneous_final

You forgot excruciatingly annoying as well.

I would become a paying member if they would start banning religious threads.

Every time I see them my head starts to ache.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33674751

Then don't read them Silly!

I feel the same way when I see yet another Nobody thread, or a race-baiting one, or one on "I'm an jerkoff; ask me a question."

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

At least they are somewhat interesting and original.

The religious threads all say the exact same thing and whenever one of those nuts tries to prove something, they type out some quote from their stupid, fucking book.

It's truly mind numbing.

They have zero debate skills, they certainly don't have any facts, and when you paint them into a corner, you get this.

I never said I was an atheist, you just assumed that. I do believe in God but not the God of the bible, and my beliefs are my beliefs. I have no need to share them with anyone because it doesn't matter to me what anyone else thinks. We all have our own path to travel. All paths lead to God and mine is none of your business. I'm only commenting on yours because you put it on a public forum.

I am also not questioning whether God exists or not. My experiences tell me God does exist but not the personal God of Christianity.

Another wrong assumption you made was my not knowing any Buddhists. I volunteered at a Buddhist publishing house for a year that published only books by Thich Nhat Hanh. People who wanted to know more about Buddhist thought contacted the publisher for books to read. People who are searching contact that which offers them answers. They are not hit over the head like rabid Christians spouting chapter and verse. I'm not saying that's what you're doing but there are plenty who do. I've met many born-again Christians who are the worst people I've ever known. They were not Christlike even by accident.

I also had a very close friend who was a Hindu and he never once tried to convert me to his way of thinking, nor did his Hindu friends.

One more thought and then I'm done. What I don't like about Christians is their obsessive focus on Satan. I've been to church services with friends or because of funerals and the emphasis on evil makes me want to puke. Talk about devil worship! Even my own mother's funeral was full of Satan crap.

Change the focus to love and you change the world. You attract what you put out there, which is universal law.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24392638

You mean you're willing to criticize my beliefs and then not discuss yours? That's strange and also unusual for you to engage me and openly put me down for all my spiritual failings than fail to discuss yours!

Come come, don't be such a coward. Let's talk about your beliefs too.

We should talk about Thich Nhat Hanh then, for it is undeniable that he's both a brilliant man as well as a devout spiritual man. Regardless even that system recognizes some sense of spiritual attainment in which people evolve into a bodhisattva or higher. So you're denying the existence of God per se.

Some Christians. My gosh there are a billion of us. You're making a really huge dishonest stereotype. I don't know any two that are the same, not many but the extreme sort of fundamentalists who spend a ton of time on Satan's presence.

The problem with only love is that it isn't defineable and is so loose as to be almost meaningless. It's a bland idea discussing universal love, and unattainable.

It's like saying, "See if everyone would just love each other, then everything would be perfect...." which is admirable and noble and hopelessly naive too.

Science is required to assume things to clarify a picture of what is in the natural world. They take the present, measurable data, and apply assumptions that resolve conflicts in the data set. So here are some puzzling facts about life that create conflict in the evolutionary data set.

The Cell: Evolution explains the transition between life forms. Evolution requires a cell that already has the built in capacity to reproduce itself. So how did we get a cell?

Constants in Nature: Evolution depends on constants being in place -- our existence here is dependent upon and extremely fine-tuned Universe.

Evil: Evolution cannot explain the depth of human evil. Evolution presumes cruelty and harshness, but it is out of necessity. So how do you explain this human evil that far exceeds necessity and reaches depths that are unfathomable?

Rationality: Evolution cannot account for rationality because evolution says we are programmed in the world to survive and reproduce. Our minds are organs of survival. They are not organs of truth. So if we believe in rationality we require something outside of evolution to account for that.

Morality: Evolution cannot account for morality -- from the little things, to deeds of heroic greatness. Both the person who offers up his seat to an elderly woman to the person who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies – both are operating outside the scope of evolution. In both cases there is no advantage to be gained. What is the evolutionary explanation for morality?

Art: We sing, dance, sculpt, cook, etc., etc. We encapsulate our emotions into these practices to create something of meaning that provides no evolutionary advantage.

I ask you to consider the God explanation. Why do we have a cell that shows the structure of complexity? Because, the cell has been intelligently designed by an intelligent designer. Why does the universe show complexity? Same answer. Why is there rationality? Because those are characteristics of the designer. Why is the depth of human evil so deep? Because our lives are a drama in which good and evil are in constant struggle (the Christian story). Why is there morality in the world, or why do we all feel, even when it works against our advantage, a moral law within us? Because there is a moral lawgiver who gave it to us. Why do we exercise our creative ability in the form of artistic endeavor? Because we are created in the image of a creator.

When you put it all together, the presupposition of God resolves the errors in the data set. Suddenly the light comes on with respect to these mysteries I’ve listed above. It provides an explanation. Now, there may be a better explanation, but I have yet to hear one.

Quoting: Adventus Domini

This is a remarkably eloquent and yet also succint post, one written by a true apologist of the faith of the believers of Jesus the Christ as well written by an heavy weight intellectual.

I never said I was an atheist, you just assumed that. I do believe in God but not the God of the bible, and my beliefs are my beliefs. I have no need to share them with anyone because it doesn't matter to me what anyone else thinks. We all have our own path to travel. All paths lead to God and mine is none of your business. I'm only commenting on yours because you put it on a public forum.

I am also not questioning whether God exists or not. My experiences tell me God does exist but not the personal God of Christianity.

Another wrong assumption you made was my not knowing any Buddhists. I volunteered at a Buddhist publishing house for a year that published only books by Thich Nhat Hanh. People who wanted to know more about Buddhist thought contacted the publisher for books to read. People who are searching contact that which offers them answers. They are not hit over the head like rabid Christians spouting chapter and verse. I'm not saying that's what you're doing but there are plenty who do. I've met many born-again Christians who are the worst people I've ever known. They were not Christlike even by accident.

I also had a very close friend who was a Hindu and he never once tried to convert me to his way of thinking, nor did his Hindu friends.

One more thought and then I'm done. What I don't like about Christians is their obsessive focus on Satan. I've been to church services with friends or because of funerals and the emphasis on evil makes me want to puke. Talk about devil worship! Even my own mother's funeral was full of Satan crap.

Change the focus to love and you change the world. You attract what you put out there, which is universal law.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24392638

You mean you're willing to criticize my beliefs and then not discuss yours? That's strange and also unusual for you to engage me and openly put me down for all my spiritual failings than fail to discuss yours!

Come come, don't be such a coward. Let's talk about your beliefs too.

We should talk about Thich Nhat Hanh then, for it is undeniable that he's both a brilliant man as well as a devout spiritual man. Regardless even that system recognizes some sense of spiritual attainment in which people evolve into a bodhisattva or higher. So you're denying the existence of God per se.

Some Christians. My gosh there are a billion of us. You're making a really huge dishonest stereotype. I don't know any two that are the same, not many but the extreme sort of fundamentalists who spend a ton of time on Satan's presence.

The problem with only love is that it isn't defineable and is so loose as to be almost meaningless. It's a bland idea discussing universal love, and unattainable.

It's like saying, "See if everyone would just love each other, then everything would be perfect...." which is admirable and noble and hopelessly naive too.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

It might have been a good idea to leave that line out.

Talk about meaningless drivel.

You are ALL exactly the same.

Not a shred of difference.

I can pick a "Christian" out in two seconds flat, and it isn't because they are so spiritual and good either.

Some of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard come from the mouths of most Christians.

I should know, I was a devout Christian for 25 years and left because you people are ALL, yes every single one of you, the same. The endless contradictions and hypocrisy were two other reasons.

You mean you're willing to criticize my beliefs and then not discuss yours? That's strange and also unusual for you to engage me and openly put me down for all my spiritual failings than fail to discuss yours!

Come come, don't be such a coward. Let's talk about your beliefs too.

We should talk about Thich Nhat Hanh then, for it is undeniable that he's both a brilliant man as well as a devout spiritual man. Regardless even that system recognizes some sense of spiritual attainment in which people evolve into a bodhisattva or higher. So you're denying the existence of God per se.

Some Christians. My gosh there are a billion of us. You're making a really huge dishonest stereotype. I don't know any two that are the same, not many but the extreme sort of fundamentalists who spend a ton of time on Satan's presence.

The problem with only love is that it isn't defineable and is so loose as to be almost meaningless. It's a bland idea discussing universal love, and unattainable.

It's like saying, "See if everyone would just love each other, then everything would be perfect...." which is admirable and noble and hopelessly naive too.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

It might have been a good idea to leave that line out.

Talk about meaningless drivel.

You are ALL exactly the same.

Not a shred of difference.

I can pick a "Christian" out in two seconds flat, and it isn't because they are so spiritual and good either.

Some of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard come from the mouths of most Christians.

I should know, I was a devout Christian for 25 years and left because you people are ALL, yes every single one of you, the same. The endless contradictions and hypocrisy were two other reasons.

That book and subsequent religion is full of SHIT!

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33674751

Well that's just your subjective opinion, isn't it? You don't offer any intellectual discourse whatsoever. It's very lazy writing. Why not write instead about what YOU think, rather than resort to puerile slander like "That book and subsequent religion is full of SHIT!"?

That's not how rational people talk, but how fundamentalists talk. So you've simply exchanged your probably once balanced spirituality for some dogmatic kneejerk response. How is that better?

To say that all one billion people are the same is quite frankly moronic.

You mean you're willing to criticize my beliefs and then not discuss yours? That's strange and also unusual for you to engage me and openly put me down for all my spiritual failings than fail to discuss yours!

Come come, don't be such a coward. Let's talk about your beliefs too.

We should talk about Thich Nhat Hanh then, for it is undeniable that he's both a brilliant man as well as a devout spiritual man. Regardless even that system recognizes some sense of spiritual attainment in which people evolve into a bodhisattva or higher. So you're denying the existence of God per se.

Some Christians. My gosh there are a billion of us. You're making a really huge dishonest stereotype. I don't know any two that are the same, not many but the extreme sort of fundamentalists who spend a ton of time on Satan's presence.

The problem with only love is that it isn't defineable and is so loose as to be almost meaningless. It's a bland idea discussing universal love, and unattainable.

It's like saying, "See if everyone would just love each other, then everything would be perfect...." which is admirable and noble and hopelessly naive too.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

It might have been a good idea to leave that line out.

Talk about meaningless drivel.

You are ALL exactly the same.

Not a shred of difference.

I can pick a "Christian" out in two seconds flat, and it isn't because they are so spiritual and good either.

Some of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard come from the mouths of most Christians.

I should know, I was a devout Christian for 25 years and left because you people are ALL, yes every single one of you, the same. The endless contradictions and hypocrisy were two other reasons.

That book and subsequent religion is full of SHIT!

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33674751

Well that's just your subjective opinion, isn't it? You don't offer any intellectual discourse whatsoever. It's very lazy writing. Why not write instead about what YOU think, rather than resort to puerile slander like "That book and subsequent religion is full of SHIT!"?

That's not how rational people talk, but how fundamentalists talk. So you've simply exchanged your probably once balanced spirituality for some domgmaitic kneejerk response. How is that better?

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

Funny how you picked that one line out amongst everything that was said in that post.

Your Christian religion has also led you down erroneous religious paths. Jesus did not start the Christian religion; his followers did many years after the fact. Jesus cannot save you; you must save yourself, and you do that according to how you live your life. Jesus did not die for your sins; your sins are your own, not his. He died to show you that there is no death; that is what Lazarus and the resurrection is all about. But your religion does not want you to know that because then they would have no power over you. As it is now, the church holds you in life-long fear that you will rot in hell if you don't obey the church's commands. The CHURCH'S commands, not God's commands. The church commands you by putting words in God's mouth. Is that the kind of bogus faith you want?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24392638

Jesus did begin a religious movement which began as soon as he begin preaching. We know that from the disciples who He immediately attracted.

What you're discussing is the state religion of Constantine which I admit happened far later. Prior is was a tiny movement.

Jesus by definition by dying on the Cross was done to redeem the whole world. He said it many times. That is the basis for Christianity, and if He didn't come back three days later and ressurected then it wouldn't be a religion. You don't understand much about Christian belief, do you?

If you're proposing your own belief system, then instead you should explain that carefully, not interweave Jesus within your idea. You should expand upon this self-saving, for what you say is not clear.

Are you a Gnostic, because it sounds like it?

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

Tell me where Jesus said he was going to redeem the world from the cross. And by the way, what a terrible image to base a religion on, one of torture and suffering, a man hanging on a cross to die a slow, painful death. I realize that was the accepted way of execution in those days but for a religion to make that an icon is totally absurd. It conveys that you are meant to suffer, that to enjoy life is a sin. Then again, most everything in the Christian church is a sin. There goes that obsession with Satan again ...

Jesus did not come to start a religion. He came to show people the right way to live, which consisted to 2 important things: love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He also came to show that death was not the end of life, that our souls go on after the body dies. He appeared 3 days later in his light body, which is the spiritual body (or the heavenly body, if you prefer) made of light. Everyone who dies goes through this same process. Some people's vibrations are higher than others and they can see the light body of people who have died, or their vibrations were high when they died that their light bodies are also high vibration and therefore visible. Jesus had a very high vibration so he was able to appear to his loved ones and others. People didn't understand that at the time. They thought he was God, so they made him God. People weren't too well versed in a lot of things 2,000 years ago, which is why a religion was created.

But Jesus did not come to start a religion. I'll say it again: he came to teach people the right way to live. He is very high on the spiritual ladder and is probably the first perfected soul. There are others who are behind him, such as Buddha, Mohammad, and other "teachers" who came to guide/teach us earthlings a more enlightened way of life. Then there's Parmahansa Yogananda, a yogi in India 100 years ago who told the exact hour of his death some time in the future and who died at exactly that hour. His body after 20 days had not decomposed one bit. I wouldn't be a bit surprised but it's still in a perfect state.

You mean you're willing to criticize my beliefs and then not discuss yours? That's strange and also unusual for you to engage me and openly put me down for all my spiritual failings than fail to discuss yours!

Come come, don't be such a coward. Let's talk about your beliefs too.

We should talk about Thich Nhat Hanh then, for it is undeniable that he's both a brilliant man as well as a devout spiritual man. Regardless even that system recognizes some sense of spiritual attainment in which people evolve into a bodhisattva or higher. So you're denying the existence of God per se.

Some Christians. My gosh there are a billion of us. You're making a really huge dishonest stereotype. I don't know any two that are the same, not many but the extreme sort of fundamentalists who spend a ton of time on Satan's presence.

The problem with only love is that it isn't defineable and is so loose as to be almost meaningless. It's a bland idea discussing universal love, and unattainable.

It's like saying, "See if everyone would just love each other, then everything would be perfect...." which is admirable and noble and hopelessly naive too.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

It might have been a good idea to leave that line out.

Talk about meaningless drivel.

You are ALL exactly the same.

Not a shred of difference.

I can pick a "Christian" out in two seconds flat, and it isn't because they are so spiritual and good either.

Some of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard come from the mouths of most Christians.

I should know, I was a devout Christian for 25 years and left because you people are ALL, yes every single one of you, the same. The endless contradictions and hypocrisy were two other reasons.

That book and subsequent religion is full of SHIT!

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33674751

Well that's just your subjective opinion, isn't it? You don't offer any intellectual discourse whatsoever. It's very lazy writing. Why not write instead about what YOU think, rather than resort to puerile slander like "That book and subsequent religion is full of SHIT!"?

That's not how rational people talk, but how fundamentalists talk. So you've simply exchanged your probably once balanced spirituality for some dogmatic kneejerk response. How is that better?

To say that all one billion people are the same is quite frankly moronic.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

No, no it's not.

It comes from 25 YEARS of research and asking questions.

You, on the other hand, haven't looked outside of your box for your entire life.

You mean you're willing to criticize my beliefs and then not discuss yours? That's strange and also unusual for you to engage me and openly put me down for all my spiritual failings than fail to discuss yours!

Come come, don't be such a coward. Let's talk about your beliefs too.

We should talk about Thich Nhat Hanh then, for it is undeniable that he's both a brilliant man as well as a devout spiritual man. Regardless even that system recognizes some sense of spiritual attainment in which people evolve into a bodhisattva or higher. So you're denying the existence of God per se.

Some Christians. My gosh there are a billion of us. You're making a really huge dishonest stereotype. I don't know any two that are the same, not many but the extreme sort of fundamentalists who spend a ton of time on Satan's presence.

The problem with only love is that it isn't defineable and is so loose as to be almost meaningless. It's a bland idea discussing universal love, and unattainable.

It's like saying, "See if everyone would just love each other, then everything would be perfect...." which is admirable and noble and hopelessly naive too.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

It might have been a good idea to leave that line out.

Talk about meaningless drivel.

You are ALL exactly the same.

Not a shred of difference.

I can pick a "Christian" out in two seconds flat, and it isn't because they are so spiritual and good either.

Some of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard come from the mouths of most Christians.

I should know, I was a devout Christian for 25 years and left because you people are ALL, yes every single one of you, the same. The endless contradictions and hypocrisy were two other reasons.

That book and subsequent religion is full of SHIT!

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33674751

Well that's just your subjective opinion, isn't it? You don't offer any intellectual discourse whatsoever. It's very lazy writing. Why not write instead about what YOU think, rather than resort to puerile slander like "That book and subsequent religion is full of SHIT!"?

That's not how rational people talk, but how fundamentalists talk. So you've simply exchanged your probably once balanced spirituality for some domgmaitic kneejerk response. How is that better?

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

Funny how you picked that one line out amongst everything that was said in that post.

You're a Christian, aren't you?

See how easy that was?

See ya.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33674751

Note unlike you I didn't say something equally perverse. It's not the mark of an intelligent person, only a jerk. It's pathetic, and not the way to debate, but rather the actions of a spoiled child.

Your Christian religion has also led you down erroneous religious paths. Jesus did not start the Christian religion; his followers did many years after the fact. Jesus cannot save you; you must save yourself, and you do that according to how you live your life. Jesus did not die for your sins; your sins are your own, not his. He died to show you that there is no death; that is what Lazarus and the resurrection is all about. But your religion does not want you to know that because then they would have no power over you. As it is now, the church holds you in life-long fear that you will rot in hell if you don't obey the church's commands. The CHURCH'S commands, not God's commands. The church commands you by putting words in God's mouth. Is that the kind of bogus faith you want?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24392638

Jesus did begin a religious movement which began as soon as he begin preaching. We know that from the disciples who He immediately attracted.

What you're discussing is the state religion of Constantine which I admit happened far later. Prior is was a tiny movement.

Jesus by definition by dying on the Cross was done to redeem the whole world. He said it many times. That is the basis for Christianity, and if He didn't come back three days later and ressurected then it wouldn't be a religion. You don't understand much about Christian belief, do you?

If you're proposing your own belief system, then instead you should explain that carefully, not interweave Jesus within your idea. You should expand upon this self-saving, for what you say is not clear.

Are you a Gnostic, because it sounds like it?

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

Tell me where Jesus said he was going to redeem the world from the cross. And by the way, what a terrible image to base a religion on, one of torture and suffering, a man hanging on a cross to die a slow, painful death. I realize that was the accepted way of execution in those days but for a religion to make that an icon is totally absurd. It conveys that you are meant to suffer, that to enjoy life is a sin. Then again, most everything in the Christian church is a sin. There goes that obsession with Satan again ...

Jesus did not come to start a religion. He came to show people the right way to live, which consisted to 2 important things: love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He also came to show that death was not the end of life, that our souls go on after the body dies. He appeared 3 days later in his light body, which is the spiritual body (or the heavenly body, if you prefer) made of light. Everyone who dies goes through this same process. Some people's vibrations are higher than others and they can see the light body of people who have died, or their vibrations were high when they died that their light bodies are also high vibration and therefore visible. Jesus had a very high vibration so he was able to appear to his loved ones and others. People didn't understand that at the time. They thought he was God, so they made him God. People weren't too well versed in a lot of things 2,000 years ago, which is why a religion was created.

But Jesus did not come to start a religion. I'll say it again: he came to teach people the right way to live. He is very high on the spiritual ladder and is probably the first perfected soul. There are others who are behind him, such as Buddha, Mohammad, and other "teachers" who came to guide/teach us earthlings a more enlightened way of life. Then there's Parmahansa Yogananda, a yogi in India 100 years ago who told the exact hour of his death some time in the future and who died at exactly that hour. His body after 20 days had not decomposed one bit. I wouldn't be a bit surprised but it's still in a perfect state.

You mean you're willing to criticize my beliefs and then not discuss yours? That's strange and also unusual for you to engage me and openly put me down for all my spiritual failings than fail to discuss yours!

Come come, don't be such a coward. Let's talk about your beliefs too.

We should talk about Thich Nhat Hanh then, for it is undeniable that he's both a brilliant man as well as a devout spiritual man. Regardless even that system recognizes some sense of spiritual attainment in which people evolve into a bodhisattva or higher. So you're denying the existence of God per se.

Some Christians. My gosh there are a billion of us. You're making a really huge dishonest stereotype. I don't know any two that are the same, not many but the extreme sort of fundamentalists who spend a ton of time on Satan's presence.

The problem with only love is that it isn't defineable and is so loose as to be almost meaningless. It's a bland idea discussing universal love, and unattainable.

It's like saying, "See if everyone would just love each other, then everything would be perfect...." which is admirable and noble and hopelessly naive too.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

It might have been a good idea to leave that line out.

Talk about meaningless drivel.

You are ALL exactly the same.

Not a shred of difference.

I can pick a "Christian" out in two seconds flat, and it isn't because they are so spiritual and good either.

Some of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard come from the mouths of most Christians.

I should know, I was a devout Christian for 25 years and left because you people are ALL, yes every single one of you, the same. The endless contradictions and hypocrisy were two other reasons.

That book and subsequent religion is full of SHIT!

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33674751

Well that's just your subjective opinion, isn't it? You don't offer any intellectual discourse whatsoever. It's very lazy writing. Why not write instead about what YOU think, rather than resort to puerile slander like "That book and subsequent religion is full of SHIT!"?

That's not how rational people talk, but how fundamentalists talk. So you've simply exchanged your probably once balanced spirituality for some dogmatic kneejerk response. How is that better?

To say that all one billion people are the same is quite frankly moronic.

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

No, no it's not.

It comes from 25 YEARS of research and asking questions.

You, on the other hand, haven't looked outside of your box for your entire life.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33674751

You're not willing to debate me and take the chance of being persuaded or even trying to understand one other person who is engaging you. That's sad. You see the opposite is true on my side, because unlike you I am interested in what you think. You devalue others who don't agree with you. That shows a real lack of character.

I can pick a "Christian" out in two seconds flat, and it isn't because they are so spiritual and good either.

Some of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard come from the mouths of most Christians.

I should know, I was a devout Christian for 25 years and left because you people are ALL, yes every single one of you, the same. The endless contradictions and hypocrisy were two other reasons.

That book and subsequent religion is full of SHIT!

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33674751

Well that's just your subjective opinion, isn't it? You don't offer any intellectual discourse whatsoever. It's very lazy writing. Why not write instead about what YOU think, rather than resort to puerile slander like "That book and subsequent religion is full of SHIT!"?

That's not how rational people talk, but how fundamentalists talk. So you've simply exchanged your probably once balanced spirituality for some domgmaitic kneejerk response. How is that better?

Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid

Funny how you picked that one line out amongst everything that was said in that post.

You're a Christian, aren't you?

See how easy that was?

See ya.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33674751

Note unlike you I didn't say something equally perverse. It's not the mark of an intelligent person, only a jerk. It's pathetic, and not the way to debate, but rather the actions of a spoiled child.